> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 10:26 AM
> To: Chuck McDevitt
> Cc: Tom Lane; Gregory Stark; Michael Glaesemann; Ben Tilly; pgsql-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SQL feature requests
> Chuck McDevitt wrote:
> > Sometimes supporting "de-facto" standards as well as official
> > makes sense.
> On that basis we would support huge pieces of stuff that emulates
> too. Or perhaps you'd like us to follow Oracle's treatment of NULL.
> gets to choose what is the de facto standard we follow?
You must be joking... PostgreSQL already has a huge amount of
"non-standard" syntax and semantics (perhaps "extensions" is a better
Everything from non-standard cast operator, non-standard substr,
non-standard trim, non standard group by semantics (allowing simple ints
to mean column number)... Given a day, we could probably write down
several pages of "non-standard" features of PGSQL.
Who decides what de facto standards to support, and which not? The
PostgreSQL community of course.
In general, we wouldn't want to support any de facto standard that:
1. Is supported only by one vendor
2. Causes any standard SQL statement to fail, or return a different
answer from the standard.
The proposed change doesn't fail either of these.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly